The changing interpretations of the Second Amendment

Iwas slack-jawed to learn that the president, like many survivors, was “disappointed” at the brevity of the FBI report on the Las Vegas, Nev., massacre of October 2017, a mere three pages and no motive determined. By contrast, the report on the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 children and six adults (plus the killer and his mother) was some 1,500 pages. How comforting for the bereaved.

We know that Adam Lanza, the shooter, was on the autism spectrum, had had several mental health evaluations and was certifiably odd. It’s comforting to think that mass murderers are distinctive and rare and have a motive. It’s folly, too. Most are simply angry white men. Their anger provides a reason, but not a motive.

We know this of the Las Vegas shooter: His hotel room put him at a great angle to kill; that it contained dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition; that his home was also full of guns and ammunition. Stephen Paddock, like most mass murderers, was an angry white man who collected guns. Might someone take them away? Not a chance. Nearly anyone can own a gun, or a thousand, and a thousand rounds of ammunition. No questions asked.

Instead of looking for motives, look for reasons instead: What is the reason President Donald Trump and many other elected officials oppose any limits on owning guns? What is the reason so many lawmakers respond to the latest massacre by sending “thoughts and prayers” to the bereaved? (Their fund of thoughts and prayers must be depleted by now.) What is the reason they fail to take sensible action of any sort to the ongoing carnage, as if the Second Amendment authorized a free-for-all?

Do they read only the last 14 words of the amendment and fail to notice the first 13, which illustrate the amendment as something from the 18th century? And what is the reason the originalists of the U.S. Supreme Court likewise disregard the limitations placed on the main clause of the Second Amendment by the modifying phrase that precedes it?

The Second Amendment is designed for an era when there was a citizen militia that furnished its own weapons. Even if the justices like guns, can’t they read? The Second Amendment is about as relevant as the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent. When is the last time a reserve captain knocked on your door and asked to quarter troops in your spare room?

Many elected representatives operate as if the Second Amendment is the only one that matters, taking precedence over the right of everyone to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted by the Declaration of Independence — in malls, in pubs, churches and schools.

Until the powers in government recognize that guns have their place — but not everywhere — we will have neardaily carnage wherever people go about the business of daily living.

And with respect to the originalists on the Supreme Court — all men, by the way — most legal scholars, and ophthalmologists without exception, agree: When they construe the Second Amendment, they demonstrate to the world that they are legally blind.

Judy Mellow lives in Santa Fe.